Annan and Bolton Disagree on Draft for New Rights Group 
By Warren Hoge
February 24, 2006
The New York Times
Original Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/international/24nations.html

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 23 — Secretary General Kofi Annan and rights groups said today that a resolution on a new Human Rights Council had fallen short of their expectations but still provided the best option for replacing the discredited Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Annan said he hoped the final draft, made public today, would be approved by the General Assembly next week.
But John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, said the proposal had too many deficiencies and should be renegotiated.
Based on conversations we've had with other governments, the strongest argument in favor of this draft is that it is not as bad as it could be, Mr. Bolton said.
The proposal calls for a council of 47 countries instead of the commission's 53, with new restrictions on membership, means for timely interventions in crises and a year-round presence with three meetings a year lasting a total of at least 10 weeks. The Geneva-based commission meets once a year for six weeks.
The commission has been a public embarrassment to the United Nations because participation has been open to countries like Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, current members who are themselves accused of gross rights abuses.
The proposal drops a critical element of Mr. Annan's original proposal designed to address this membership problem — a requirement that new members be elected by two-thirds of those voting.
Developing world countries objected to that provision, and Jan Eliasson, the president of the 191-member General Assembly and author of the final draft, negotiated a compromise agreement on an absolute majority — meaning 96 votes — in place of the simple majority of those voting.
The resolution maintains the right of regional groups to put forward a slate of candidates that has enabled violators to join the panel but adds the requirement that there be individual secret ballot votes in the General Assembly on each country. Every country will also be subject to a review of its rights records at least once during its three-year term.
Nations would not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms, meaning they would have to step aside for a year before reapplying.
Obviously the proposal isn't everything I asked for, said Mr. Annan, who first proposed the council last March. There are enough good elements on this to build on. I don't think anyone can claim this is old wine in new bottles.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, This is less than we hoped for, but it is clearly better than the Human Rights Commission, and we are supporting it.
Yvonne Terlingen, United Nations representative of Amnesty International, called on governments to adopt the resolution without delay. This is an historic opportunity that governments must not squander for selfish political interests, she said.
Asked about Mr. Bolton's suggestion of reopening negotiations, Mr. Eliasson said, My belief is that a continued round of negotiations in the circumstances that exist in this world and in the circumstances that exist on our reform agenda here at the United Nations would not be fruitful.
Mr. Annan said, Member states have had enough time to discuss the issues and now is the time for decision.